On the whole, I agree with your assessment. The increase of death from all causes during past pandemics was how the death rate of an outbreak was calculated. It's still not a fool-proof method, but likely approximates the actual figure much better than the methods currently being used. BUT - with that said, I do agree with Musk on several fronts. First, that it is not as deadly as the current stats suggest-and this is for precisely the same reasons as you cite for an undercount. Example: people who have heart disease, kidney problems, etc. may be not getting healthcare for fear of contracting the virus. I know in my own family, my mom refused to seek treatment for an entire week while having some potentially fatal health issues. Thankfully, we finally talked her into going to the doctor. But she will likely have some long-term health issues because she did not seek immediate care. Also, the lack of testing could be skewing stats in the opposite direction. The very few statistically viable random population tests that are out there suggest a MUCH higher infection rate-which would bring the fatality percentages way down. Does that mean a lot of people won't die either as a direct consequence of infection, or from complications due to comorbidities? No, but an appropriate response cannot be developed without better data. Appropriate data collection should have been happening from the outset to ascertain the true risk, and, I argue, the mass production of N95 masks for every man, woman, & child to help slow the spread of infection as the economy MUST be reopened before supply chains completely collapse & evaporate. My exasperation comes from anyone expecting Donald Trump to accurately collect & disburse data. And Musk's not an idiot-he made a well calculated political maneuver to save his company. He knows no responsible solutions are waiting in the wings of government.

In total agreement.

Likely true.